The Jefferson - Hemings Controversy - Episodes -
It is the morning after Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings are intimate, and Jefferson though he sees the true animosity of Sally's relationship with Thomas Jefferson. Jupiter introduces Sally to Aaron Burr as "Sally Hemings of Monticello. HIS Introduction to Historical Methods: The World of Thomas Jefferson and Jefferson's relationship with his slave Sally Hemings—we will explore historical in class a photocopy of Reed and Williams, eds., The Case of Aaron Burr. The Jefferson–Hemings controversy is a historical debate over whether a sexual relationship between U.S. President Thomas Jefferson and his slave, Sally Vice President, Aaron Burr · George Clinton. Preceded by, John Adams. Succeeded.
He and other critics essentially discounted Hemings' memoir, while attributing to him a range of negative motives for telling his story. In his work, Parton repeated the Jefferson family's oral history about a Carr paternity and the claim that Jefferson was absent during the conception period of one of Hemings' children.
In the s, as part of his six-volume biography of Jefferson, Malone was the first to publish a letter by Ellen Randolph Coolidge, Randolph's sister that added to the Carr paternity story. But she claimed that the late Samuel Carr, brother to Peter and also a nephew of Jefferson's through his sister, had fathered Hemings' children. Like Peter, Samuel was married when Hemings' children were born.
Neither of the Randolphs named Jefferson's nephews as putative fathers of Hemings' children until after the men had died. They noted he had expressed antipathy to blacks and miscegenation in his writings, and he was thought to have a "high" moral character. They provided extensive data about slaves and slave births, including all of Sally Hemings' children, and have been used extensively by researchers. Black oral history preserved the account of the Jefferson-Hemings relationship, and the place of African Americans at the center of United States history.
Black historians began to publish material related to the mixed-race Hemings descendants. Lerone Bennettin his article, "Thomas Jefferson's Negro Grandchildren," published in Ebony in Novemberexamined the current lives of individuals claiming descent from this union. It was based on material from the Farm Books, as well as a detailed timeline of Jefferson's activities developed by historian Dumas Malone in his extensive biography. This was published in several volumes beginning in the s.
Graham noted that Hemings conceived her children only when Jefferson was in residence at Monticello, during a time when he traveled frequently and was away for lengthy periods.
Graham also provided biographical information on Sally's children; she supported accounts that Hemings and Jefferson had several children together. She addressed the rumors of Jefferson's relationship with Sally Hemings, his quadroon slave, conducted extensive research, and concluded that they had a long relationship. Its records of slave births, deaths, purchases and sales, and other information, has provided researchers with considerable data about the lives of slaves at Monticello, including the births of all Sally Hemings' known children.
His documentation in his multi-volume biography published — provided the details that Pearl Graham analyzed to show Jefferson was at Monticello for the conception of each of Hemings' children.
She never conceived when he was not there. Martha Randolph, Jefferson's daughter with Martha Wayles Jefferson, had made a deathbed claim that Jefferson was away for a month period during which one of the Hemings children was conceived. Gordon-Reed shows this claim is not supported by Malone's documentation; Jefferson was at Monticello at the time of conception of each child. He acknowledged that the relationship was possible. This analysis, commonly referred to as a Monte Carlo simulationwas done by the head of archaeology at Monticello.
Holowchak argues that "Statistical arguments are only as good as the data that go into them. When you contaminate the data, even slightly, by selectively culling data that will secure the sought-out conclusion and by ignoring relevant evidence that creates difficulties for the thesis, then the results can become massively skewed—hence, the 0.
When mixed-race children were sired by the master, they were frequently named after people from his family. At working age, they were each apprenticed to the master carpenter of the estate, the most skilled artisan, who was also their uncle.
This would provide them with skills to make a good living as free adults. Harriet Hemings did not begin working as a weaver until she was fourteen years old. Another example is that unlike other slaves, Madison Hemings stated that until they were put to work, they would run errands with Sally. This was very uncommon. Most importantly, Gordon-Reed notes that Jefferson freed all the Hemings children. Theirs was the only slave family to all go free from Monticello; they were the only slaves freed in their youth and as they came of age, and Harriet Hemings was the only female slave he ever freed.
Jefferson avoided publicity this way, but the gentry at the time noted the Hemingses' absences; Monticello overseer Edmund Bacon noted in his memoir published after Jefferson's death that people were talking about Harriet's departure, saying that she was Jefferson's daughter.
To enable them to stay in Virginia, Jefferson's will petitioned the legislature for permission for them to stay in the state with their families. Such legislative approval was required by laws related to manumission and free blacks. Jefferson also freed three older males from the extended Elizabeth Hemings family; they had each served him for decades.
His will also requested that they be allowed to stay in the state. David Page, one of the committee's scientific case reviewers, recommended that additional research needed to be done into "the local population structure around Monticello two hundred years ago, as respects the Y chromosome," before entirely ruling out the possibility of the paternity of any of the other 7 potential paternity candidates.
Historical consensus[ edit ] With the Carr nephews disproved and a match for the Eston Hemings descendant found with the Jefferson male line, formerly skeptical biographers, such as Joseph Ellis and Andrew Burstein, publicly said they had changed their opinions and concluded that Jefferson had fathered Hemings' children.
So, as far as can be reconstructed, there are no Jeffersons other than the president who had the degree of physical access to Sally Hemings that he did. Jordanpresident of Monticello, committed at the time to incorporate "the conclusions of the report into Monticello's training, interpretation, and publications. New exhibits at Monticello show Jefferson as the father of the Sally Hemings children. Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemmings Redux, a total of seven articles noting the changed consensus and the developing new views on Jefferson.
Neiman, who studied the statistical significance of the relationship between Jefferson's documented residencies at Monticello and Hemings' conceptions. It stated in its overview: More than 20 years after CBS executives were pressured by Jefferson historians to drop plans for a mini-series on Jefferson and Hemings, the network airs Sally Hemings: Though many quarreled with the portrayal of Hemings as unrealistically modern and heroic, no major historian challenged the series' premise that Hemings and Jefferson had a year relationship that produced children.
In several articles, its specialists concluded that, as the genealogist Helen M. Leary wrote, the "chain of evidence": Foster later said that Barger was "fantastic" and "of immense help to me". Turner and Paul Rahe, among others. In the group published its report, in which the majority concluded there was insufficient evidence to determine that Jefferson was the father of Hemings' children. Their report suggested that his younger brother Randolph Jefferson was the father, and that Hemings may have had multiple partners.
They emphasized that more than 20 Jefferson males lived in Virginia, eight within 20 miles of Monticello. Paul Rahe published a minority view, saying he thought Jefferson's paternity of Eston Hemings was more likely than not. Similarly, no documentation of a Randolph visit appears at the probable conception time for Madison Hemings. The team had concluded that Jefferson's paternity was the simplest explanation and consistent with historic evidence, but the DNA study could not identify Thomas Jefferson exclusively of other Jefferson males because no sample of his DNA was available.
He noted "previous testimony had agreed" that Hemings had only one father for her children, and criticized the idea that she had multiple partners for her children. Andrew Holowchak is a stentorian critic of advocates of pro-paternity.
In numerous publications, he asserts that we are in no position to assert anything other than this: We do not know. The situation at Monticello is toxic. Holowchak maintains that the Foundation is phasing out Jefferson and focusing on race and Sally Hemings at the expense of Jefferson's life and legacy.
While it is laudable that members of the TJF wish to be viewed historically as paladins of human rights, they are doing so by constructing an image of Jefferson that is warped by political ideals. Their Jefferson is an opportunist, hypocrite, racist, and perhaps even rapist, and they do not give voice to scholars who disagree.
It's my impression that it seems anomalous that Jefferson Davis and Calhoun, the southerners, worshipped Jefferson, as did Abraham Lincoln, the Unionist president. I can only say to those who find this puzzling: And each was equally sincere or insincere, as the case may be in quoting scripture, so Jefferson is American scripture.
You must have him on your side if you're going to have a government based upon the people. If you're going to have a government based upon property, you can get rid of Jefferson, you can turn to Washington, to Hamilton, to John Adams. But it is Jefferson who really expresses the sense Well, they began, "We the people of the United States in Congress assembled And if indeed a Constitutional Convention were ever held again, that's why everybody's terrified of it.
Once we the people are assembled, they overwhelm the courts, the legislature, and the executive. So we need Thomas Jefferson. Was he afraid of emancipation? I mean, Winston Churchill said that no great country could handle more than one great problem at the same time.
And so slavery was sacrificed on the altar of the Union at the Constitutional Convention. I think Jefferson was nervous about emancipation on rather logical grounds that the newly freed blacks might be very angry about what had been done to them during their time on the cross, as it were.
So we made good business out of it, but he was scared, and the word from Philadelphia was that the blacks were going to kill their former masters. They were going to kill all the whites. Yes, I think he was a racist, in any proper use of the word. He thought the blacks were inferior to the whites. He thought the Indians, as they were known then, were somewhat different, off to one side.
He admired the Indians' independence and their warrior spirit. He rather admired that. The blacks, he didn't grasp at all.
He didn't realize that, after all, if you were a fifth-generation slave you were not going to invent electricity, you know, you would not be in a position to know enough to do these things. He thought the blacks He was comparing blacks to whites to Indians, and he said that "what they may lack in brain power, they make up for in the affection and sweetness of their character," and so on.
Which is racism, you know, laid on with rather a heavy hand. But he was then. He was not now. What about the sense of him as a poly-man, this great inventor of things? Do you buy into the Renaissance man? I buy into it to a degree. I think the fact that he was such an inveterate and, may I say, optimistic inventor. He did invent a very good dumbwaiter, which was absolutely Here was this wonderful dumbwaiter that he had not thought of. So Washington then invented an iron plow that was so heavy no ox or horse could pull it.
So there was this huge iron plow at Mount Vernon, a kind of monument to his rivalry with Thomas Jefferson. You see, in the 18th century there weren't so many books, and any learned man could feel he knew everything. He would know Roman history, he would know Greek history, he would have read all the classics, you could do it in 10 or 15 years.
You lived on your own place; you had slaves or cheap labor. You built your own house; you were your own architect. It was no wonder that some of them were very good at it, and he was one. Well, I've portrayed Jefferson variously.
Particularly in a book called Burr, as a manipulator, a first-rate political manipulator, as somewhat hypocritical, which goes with the territory of being a politician.
He makes a deal with Aaron Burr of New York in order to get New York's electoral votes, with the understanding that Burr is vice president and he will succeed Jefferson after two terms. He then betrays that. Duplicitous, he can be called.
Is he more duplicitous than Franklin Roosevelt or any of the other useful presidents? Well, that's part of the territory. A certain windiness gets on my nerves.
Hamilton historical facts that didn't make the musical
Lack of concrete nouns. There's an awful lot of liberty, justice, freedom, you know, all these vague words which, you know, bad politicians use, and he ought not to because he's too clever. On the other hand, he sometimes has to make a blur for the listeners. When he gave his first inaugural address, Aaron Burr was sitting next to him, this was the new vice president. It was addressed entirely to me. And he always, after that, he sent all his messages written, to Congress, to be read by somebody else.
Do we not ponder over the problem of "all men are created equal" and the mystery of "the pursuit of happiness"? Well, certainly vagueness can get you a great distance in politics, and precision can end your career rather quickly. The greatest politicians are terribly vague and rather pious.
My grandfather, who was a southerner, always hated the Gettysburg Address, and he didn't much care for Jefferson, either. Because he didn't like the sort of rhetoric. He said, "Of what people? And what does he mean about "inalienable rights"? Well, rights can be alienated rather quickly.
Certainly by writs of attainder, one of which he launched against Josiah Phillips 20 or 30 years before, which is you can kill this man on sight.
He is contradictory, but it isn't his contradictions that we need to bother with. We don't know anybody that we know today who is alive, who we can say You know certain aspects of so-and-so. With a dead man, you have only his words that have survived and his works, to the extent that you know what they are.
And you make your assessment from that. In that sense, Jefferson is extremely useful, whether he was hypocritical about 'pursuit of happiness,' whether he was duplicitous about inalienable rights when he once rather liked writs of attainder. It's what you have said, what you have done. It is the resonance of what you have projected that will light us down the dusty corridors of time. Describe the deaths of Jefferson and Adams.
I think one of the most touching episodes in American history, the two great rivals: In fact, Adams left town. He didn't wait to greet Jefferson when he became president in He fled in the night, having made a whole lot of new justices and judges, went back to Quincy, Mass. And they really, really hated each other. And then, in their last days, they were the last survivors of the founding fathers, and suddenly, they struck up a correspondence, which is one of the most moving in American literature.
And they're talking about their invention, the United States, and some things disturb them, some things they're rather proud of. They both express their dislike of organized religion, their love of philosophy, interest in classical literature, and then, on July 4th,the fiftieth anniversary of the Declaration of Independence and the birth of the United States of America, the two old men are dying. Adams, as he is dying, says, "Well, at least Jefferson still lives.
So, in the end, do we hold Thomas Jefferson close to our hearts? I don't know if Thomas Jefferson is a figure that's easy to hold to one's heart, as it were, in the way some people have managed to hold Franklin Roosevelt or Abraham Lincoln. Is he the author of that spirit? He authors something that comes down to us, flawed as it is. What is that American spirit?
And he was able, somehow, to pick up on all the waves of thought that were going through from Paris to London, from the coffeehouses to Boston, even down to Virginia, and all these ideas were coming in and coming in What is a good country?
What is a good way to live? Should we have a republic? What is a monarchy?Thomas Jefferson on Sally Hemmings
What is a colonist? What are the relations between master and slave, the relations between owner and the owned? And he took all of this, and in two or three sentences hurled it at the world. And it still goes 'round; it still inspires, and it is still the essence of whatever spirit we still have and that we once had, indeed. Thomas Jefferson was, I would say, a loner. He came at things on his own.
Like most great men, he did not have many friends. People have remarked that of Lincoln, too. Lincoln had no close friends, other than Josuah Speed.
Jefferson had no real friends; he had colleagues. He had people he worked with. He had people, particularly in his time in Paris, where he could really be himself. I'd say that was his first thing as a man: I want to know it. How do you make a building? What kind of grapes do I use if I want to make wine at Monticello?
He knew how to extract information from people, and I think that's what he loved most of all, was learning, relating one thing to another. Sexually, I don't think People have tried to psychoanalyze him. I'm not much of one for psychoanalyzing the dead, since we really don't have enough data.
It was certain that he was fond of the young wife that died. He certainly was fond of Sally Hemings. He had his one wild oat that we know about in Paris with the But I would say that he was somebody who strikes me as sensuous in that he loved food and wine and beauty and architecture, furniture.
But he was not sensual, because there would be more stories of Jefferson and ladies, and there just aren't any, aside from the one wild oat. So he was a sensuous but not a sensual man. Who won the argument, the head or the heart? Did the heart win, or did the head win? I think the head absorbed the heart.
And perhaps it's his great resonance today that alone, with a first-rate cortex, the heart is beating within his mind. And you feel that you can feel the heart in his work? You do certainly when he starts to talk about what the country could be, what the human race could be, and get past all the contradictions and so on. And you really see a fantastic idealism of a sort perfectly unknown to the practical Hamilton, equally practical George Washington, and rather legal-minded James Madison.
He did many terrible things, trying to defend his ideals. He thought if he gave way on anything, the whole house would collapse around him. And that's why he took so many absurd positions, to defend a position which he felt, even though it might not be defensible, he had to defend it. You know, let one room go and this house shall fall. Well, that's will, and that is ideology. If you could ask Jefferson one question, what would it be? By your betrayal of your agreements with Aaron Burr?
Do you really think that this helped your cause, or hurt it? I think I would get the longest, windiest answer you have ever heard. There is an opacity to him.
He seems so very difficult to penetrate. I think a lot of it is the lack of humor, in the modern sense of the word, and the lack of wit, in the ancient sense of the word and the contemporary. Lincoln could be very funny, and Lincoln could get you off the serious subject very, very quickly, although stories he told were means of getting people off his back, not questioning him. Jefferson was a monument to himself in life. He had no way of getting off the subject. So he just got in deeper.
He would then defend himself more; Lincoln would make a joke. That helps quite a lot in politics. Be hard on him. What angers you about Thomas Jefferson? I suppose the most disappointing thing about Jefferson and his career is that he could not take criticism of any sort.
Now, he did know a lot more than most people, but he didn't know everything, and there were many things people could have told him.
And he was not tuned in; he was not listening. He was far too busy with his wonderful rhetoric, some of which still resonates in the world today and some of which just falls dead, it's so obviously specious. And I think that this inability to listen, to take criticism hurt him, limited him, isolated him. You know, his presidency was a disaster.
You see, the Jefferson that we remember and revere is the Declaration of Independence, long before the republic was started. He comes into the presidency and doesn't set a foot right. Everything is going wrong for him. He puts an embargo on which wrecks American trade. Then he rather takes the wrong side of the French Revolution, but then has to zig-zag all over the place. The Louisiana Purchase turned out to be a wonderful deal for the US, but a very dicey one if you wanted to create a true republic based upon "We the people," with our inalienable rights and so on.
And had he listened more and spoken less, I think he would have been more successful. And here's the man who said, "If I had to choose between newspapers and government, I would choose newspapers.
I think he would have had contracts out on half the journalists in the United States, he was so furious because they were writing about him and his black girlfriend and so forth. He could not take anything No, the great politicians are very cool.
Of course, they don't like being criticized, and they all become paranoid. I have known one or two important politicians in our time, and every last one of them: I know what they're up to. I see it every day in the press.
What did the people feel about Thomas Jefferson at the time? It's my impression that we the people of the United States of America had no interest at all, outside of a few rather wealthy lawyers, in the government of the United States.
This was imposed on them.
There were a lot of loyalists to England, which is sort of a lot of trouble. They did not like being taxed without representation. Hence, that was the reason for the separation of colonies from the British Empire. But basically, this was a lawyer's affair, as far as Massachusetts and New York went and an aristocratic planter's affair, as far as Virginia and the South went. It was a curious alliance.
Hamilton historical facts that didn't make the musical | dayline.info
It was misalliance; they were never going to get on. And they don't get on. I don't think anybody gave a thought to Mr. Jefferson outside of Monticello and a few townships nearby. So what accounts for his immense staying power?
Where did the magic come in? Well, he said the right words at the right time, and they were never forgotten. One day the United States will be forgotten. We will have fallen apart or drifted away, found our true place somewhere between Argentina and Brazil, and then Jefferson will have been lost too.
It was only our power that made our politicians interesting to the world. This was the voice, and I would say that Jefferson and Washington were far more popular in Europe than ever they were among their own people.
Why are we compelled to try to understand Thomas Jefferson? We're compelled to understand Thomas Jefferson because I think we're compelled to understand ourselves. We live with so many contradictions that make no sense; he did too. I'm curious to see how he managed to live with them, a slave-owner who at the same time thought all men were created equal.
How can we deal with it? Well, it's useful to think of how he did. And he may be a bit windy, and a little unclear, and a little contradictory, but he prevailed. Something we might not do. What does Monticello say about Thomas Jefferson? Well, he was a bit of a snob in artistic matters, architecture. He took a good model, Palladio, to imitate for his building, which must have caused consternation at the time.